2 ms·

>we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together When does "by default" become "actually, no, that's bad and even consenting adults sho

by dTal 8y ago

>we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together When does "by default" become "actually, no, that's bad and even consenting adults shouldn't do that"? If you want to take a strong position that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime, then that's coherent and valid - but if you want to hedge with "by default", I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. You still have to say something pragmatic like "homosexuality has no documented negative social effects". (Although personally, I do think that the very idea of a victimless crime is suspect - while some behaviors between consenting adults do have unambiguously negative consequences, criminalizing actions for their invisible second-order effects seems to often cause other, nastier second-order effects. But it's certainly up for debate - applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell.)

balfirevic 8y ago
> I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. I don't think this is abstract ethical argument, but practical argument about policy. So we don't have to provide any stronger framework. Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Starting from "allowed by default" would already be a big improvement. > applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell Homosexuality was also a difficult sell. That doesn't mean anything.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Yes, this is what limited government is about. It makes policy makers accountable to the people, not the other way around. Because the government can not really implement a ban per se, but rather a particular policy that hopefully eliminates the harm, policy makers actually have to make a case for something and not just against something. Otherwise, it's just the government proclaiming that the world would be better off without something. In which case, let us start with war, margarine and bad coffee.

by dTal 8y ago

balfirevic 8y ago

> I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. I don't think this is abstract ethical argument, but practical argument about policy. So we don't have to provide any stronger framework. Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Starting from "allowed by default" would already be a big improvement. > applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell Homosexuality was also a difficult sell. That doesn't mean anything.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Yes, this is what limited government is about. It makes policy makers accountable to the people, not the other way around. Because the government can not really implement a ban per se, but rather a particular policy that hopefully eliminates the harm, policy makers actually have to make a case for something and not just against something. Otherwise, it's just the government proclaiming that the world would be better off without something. In which case, let us start with war, margarine and bad coffee.